The mindset behind trickle down economics in the US

Post Reply New Topic

Without interest you have no lending incentive and thus no way for people without resources but good ideas to implement those ideas. No interest would make it a lot harder to become wealthy or maintain a wealthy status. Thus you would have an overall less productive society.

You make the assumption that people living off interest are a drain. They are not. In fact their money is being given to people who are much better qualified to make use of it, in return for being paid back more than what they lent.

Edit: As for eventually all people becoming just lenders of money. To live off interest, you actually need to make good investments that generate a rate of return. This is easy to do in a growing economy, very difficult to do in a flat or shrinking economy. If we ever got to the point of "too many investors" "not enough doers," investing would become unprofitable and people would lose their wealth doing it.

Then down here you have all us poor working class people that don't have money or resources with which to make good investments that generate a rate of return. I mean yeah I guess if only us poor people would get off our asses and start investing in the stock market.

Seems insane to people people should be able to become uber wealthy just through investing and not doing any you know....work. But I don't have a great understanding of investment or what it all entails, but just seems crazy you can get rich if you just throw money at the stock market. But then people who do labor can work and work and work and never get ahead.

Not only did they not read the fine print, they didn't read anything at all. These are low information voters we're talking about here who barely keep up with the news and current events, who believe impossible things like "death panels," or that the tax cuts would improve the middle class. They'll just take in snippets of information spoken by politicians who know how to appeal to their fears, prejudices, and hot button issues.

These are all compelling, non-mathematical reasons why interest is popular. It still ignores that the system is built on math. 100 years of exponential growth of US debt and it baffles me that people think that's a coincidence as opposed to an inevitability or that it is sustainable eternally.

Trump's 2 year limit on ordinary citizen tax cuts is simply a marketing/politics ploy. It will renew every cycle so that he can remind everyone "all that he does" for the common man. It all serves to remind you plebeians that the government controls your money and then gives you the remainder. Very important stuff...

Actually it's strongly rooted in math. The S&P 500 average rate of return over 30 years is 8% per year. This is because a diversified profile will mimic the growth of the economy as a whole. In order to be an "investor class" individual you need a pot of money where such interest is enough to sustain you. Say you want to live on 80,000 a year. You would need 1 million dollars invested and to withdraw 80,000 a year at an 8% rate of return.

If the economy slows to say an average rate of return of 5% per year. To live at the same $80,000 per year you need to have 1.6 million dollars invested. The number of people who can live off interest shrinks because the number of people that have 1.6 million dollars to invest is fewer than the number of people who have 1 million dollars. IF the person with 1 million dollars is still withdrawing 80,000 per year to live on they are actively losing money.

If the economy slows to 0% then no one can sustain off interest on a diversified portfolio. This takes the "skill-less money" away as to generate a rate of return one has to choose their investments wisely. This is actually very difficult to do. Hedge funds have very bright people working round the clock trying to make smart investments, and have a very hit or miss record of actually outperforming diversified portfolios.

Thus the pot of money required to live as an "investor class" individual is inversely proportional to the growth of the economy. The more productive the economy the less money is needed and the more individuals who can participate. The less productive the economy the more money is needed and the less individuals who can participate. Thus if investors were actually hurting the economy they would be eliminated. Instead if investors are helping the economy their numbers will grow.

When money is taken from you without your consent, what do you call it?

When were economics or government about fairness?

I call that private healthcare. We have a medical industry in this country, in other more civilized countries, medical industry stops at the hospital door because taking people's money to benefit private interests is harmful. If the government is not taking your money, private interests will take more of it because they represent unregulated greed.

Let me make this simple for you: the purpose of money is not to hoard money. The richer the minority gets, the less money is circulating. Money only exists as a means of representing exchanges. There is no other valid reason for using it.

Taxation is the cost we pay for living in a civilized society. No taxes, no roads, no police or fire protection, no military, etc.

When I hear people complain about taxes, I think, as above, don't these people have sewers, clean water out of a tap, roads, interstate highways, firefighters, etc?

Then I hear people who complain, I don't have children, why should I pay for schools? Well, who do you think educated your police, firefighters, your doctors and dentists, your gas station attendants, the construction workers who build those roads, the plumbers who unstop your toilet, the people who repair our roads and bridges, etc?

We all benefit from our taxes and I never mind paying my share. I may disagree about how it is allocated, but I don't mind paying.

AMEN!! !

I don’t know about steadily but I guess it somewhat improved. Another example could be the Sam Brownback tax policy in Kansas.

I'm sorry this is strictly speaking not accurate and represents a fundamental lack of understanding of economics. It is possible for the minority to get richer, while the majority also gets richer, and for more money to circulate. This is in fact was has happened in the american economy over the last 80 years.

You want Donald Trump to have your money or you?